[quote]You're attempting to assign truth to your premises. In reality, premises can only be based on observation.[/quote]

A "premise" itself is not observable. It's an abstract concept. Again are you an empiricist? An empiricist is one who believes that all knowledge is gained by observation.

[quote]Your knowing is all that matters.[/quote]

If I do not know you exist, do you still exist?

[quote]You know that this "absolute logic" nonsense that you're touting isn't what you or anybody else uses every day.[/quote]

You're using logic here to convince me of the absoluteness of your argument. Is what you post here absolutely logical?

[quote]If somebody calls you and tells you his car won't start, you don't sit back in your chair and ponder out the solution with absolute logic. You ask him what the physical symptoms are. Does it turn over? Does it fire?[/quote]

But we would still use logic to determine if it were true what the symptoms are or if it were true what symptoms are not. It would either be true that it does not turn over or does not fire or it would be true that it does turn over and does fire. You cannot not use logic.

And might I point out that you would have to use logic to determine the truth of the symptoms which is "non-observable" as you are receiving second hand truth over the phone.

[quote]Whether or not it fires doesn't have an absolute answer. Maybe it fired once and then never again. Maybe it fires intermittently, Maybe it fires a few times and then stalls. The law of non-contradiction won't help you there. You need observable data.[/quote]

If you did not use logic in the initial step above when you picked up the phone, you could not get to this step. You cannot not use logic.

[quote]So, can you stop blowing hot air and talk about reality?[/quote]

I don't want too impolite here, Ringo, but I don't think you're comprehending the argument. Are there any other Canadians up there you can put on the line?

Your premise was that information can "only" come from an intelligent source. Whether or not I'm an intelligent source isn't relevant to that premise.

A "premise" itself is not observable. It's an abstract concept. Again are you an empiricist? An empiricist is one who believes that all knowledge is gained by observation.

I wouldn't necessarily say that "all" knowledge is gained by observation. I'd say that you need observation to solve practcal problems. Unless a premise describes an observation, it's worthless in a practical situation.

But it would still use logic to determine if it were true what the symptoms are or if it were true what symptoms are not. It would either be true that it does not turn over or does not fire or it would be true that it does turn over and does fire. You cannot not use logic.

Logic depends on true premises for reliable conclusions. What we're talking about here is the truth of the premises and that isn't always black or white. Whether or not the engine is firing is not a yes/no situation.

If you did not use logic in the initial step above, you could not get to this step. You cannot not use logic.

I have never denied using logic. I'm saying that logic is worthless without premises that are connected to reality - and reality is not always abolute.

So far, you have failed to show this student how you use logic to solve a practical problem. I've given you the opportunity to solve a practical problem but you resolutely refuse to do so. Based on those observations, what can I conclude but that you don't know what you're talking about?

Aleyn, I always knew that you had more education and were smarter than this old man. I am getting a little burned out posting on this thread. And I have some pressing issues I must tend to concerning my wife and some health issues. I pray I gave all some things to think about.TeeJay

I saw this reply about you feeling burned out on this thread so I'll try to keep this response short without asking any new questions that would require a answer from you and we can both let this topic drop if you feel like.

Miles,A is A would be true if A existed. Miles is Miles is not possible if Miles does not exist—nor would it be true that Miles is Miles. But I will grant you that it would be true that Miles does not exist—but not in your worldview absent God. Rational reasoning is using the laws of logic to reason rationally and reach truths. Truth is a statement of reality. But you can’t have a statement of reality without reality and reality (abstract and physical) is not possible without God. Although I don’t accept your premise that absent God it would be TRUE that A is A or non-A even ifGod did not exist, let’s explore it further to see if it holds up.

I disagree that A needs to exist in order for "A is A" to be true.

1. A unicorn is a unicorn2. A rocks dream is a rocks dream3. All Qid are Urp. Orm is a Qid. Therefore Orm is Urp.

All three of these deal with subjects that don't exist and yet they are all logically true.

....(truncated for brevity).... I want the atheist materialist to justify and account for them in his worldview.

The short answer is that logic is a created system is based on axioms (aka the laws of logic) which are considered self-evident or true by virtue of themselves. Axioms by definition are never proven although they can sometimes be disproven. The laws/axioms that you are asking for a justification for don't require any justification other than themselves.

...(truncated)...Arguing for the truth of logic does not justify it absent God. Can you do the same with morality? Let’s see. I will pretend that God does not exist. (Now this is absurd because if He did not exist eternally past, you nor I nor anything else could exist.) But for the sake of argument, I will pretend that God does not exist. Would it be it true that it is morally wrong for a man to violently rape and murder a woman? Absent a Moral Authority (God), what justification could the atheist present to justify the immorality of it? When it comes to morality, atheists are relativists. But then they sacrifice truth as well as morality. Just as a matter can’t be both true and false at the same time in the same way, so too a behavior can’t be both moral and immoral at the same time in the same way. If morality is relative, then it is true that it is morally wrong to rape a woman and it is also true that it is not morally wrong to rape a woman. Relativistic arguments always defeat themselves.

Nobody claims something to be moral and immoral at the same time in the same way. Different people may hold different opinions on the morality of an action but that is not a logical contradiction since two different viewpoints from two different people doesn't fit the "in the same way" condition.Morality is relative because it depends on context and desired outcome. An action that is morally permisible in one situation or perspective may not be morally permissible in another. Whether a action is morally correct depends on what results are desired. The generally universal moral rules about murder, assault, etc. are a result of generally universal desires for continued life, absence of pain, etc. There are multiple ways to derive the immorality of murder, it's simply a matter of picking one. Utilitarianism would say it's wrong if the harm outweighs the benefit. Kant would say it's wrong because it treats people as a means rather than an end. The golden rule would say it's wrong because I wouldn't want to be murdered.

The concept of absolute moral rules suffers the same logical problems as the concept of an irrisistable force and a immovable object (namely that only one can exist in any universe). With a little imagination and some help from the philosophers friend "a man with a gun and horrible demands (i.e. murder this woman or I'll murder her and three others)" it's pretty easy to set nearly any 2 conceivable moral rules in opposition to each other or themselves. If an action is wrong under some circumstances but not others, that action isn't absolutely morally wrong.

.....But you did ask, “What prevents nothing from producing something? The answer is “nothing.” Nothing prevents it because something can’t come from nothing. Now if you want a physical law that prevents it, it is the First Law of Thermodynamics or a simple version is that a rock can’t create itself from nothing. No new matter or energy has ever been observed coming into existence. What’s here is here. Matter or energy can’t be created or destroyed.

The statement "something can't come from nothing" lacks any support if it's true that 'nothing' includes an absence of laws. It can only be justified if there are laws such as conservation laws or logical laws that apply even when there isn't anything.I'd also suggest looking at Noether's theorem for an explanation of what causes conservation laws. http://en.wikipedia....her%27s_theorem

..(truncated)..No new matter or energy is coming into existence.Now if the atheist argues that the universe was always here (even if as big as a period at the end of this sentence), the Second Law of Thermodynamics destroys this argument. A fire can’t burn for ever is the simple version. The useable amount of energy is ever decreasing and the universe is going from order to disorder. Atheist Asimov wrote, “You can’t even break even…”So, if the universe could not have created itself from nothing, and it could not have always been here, what is your explanation for all that exists? Now when you posit “nothing” I must ask: Why do you summarily rule out a supernatural Creator in lieu of “nothing” creating something?

The universe could certainly have come from vaccuum (the physical equivilant of nothing). It is in fact still nothing if you sum up the positive energy of matter and the negative energy of gravitational potential energy. It's roughly similar to saying 0=1 + -1. Usable energy can increase via expansion of the universe as long as entropy also increases. I posted how this works in post 21 of the linked thread below.http://evolutionfair...indpost&p=84526Basically if the universe starts at the upper limit for entropy for a small volume, when it expands the upper limit for entropy is increased. The current entropy can increase up to this new upper limit (aka usable energy becomes available). As long as the upper limit for entropy increases and the current entropy increases at a different rate, usable energy is available.

I rule out specific gods like Yahweh due to plot holes or incompetence attributed to them in the stories about them. (Such as placing a fruit tree that wasn't ever to be touched in the only place it could be touched or God somehow being both all-knowing and not aware of the serpent as it was tempting Eve.)A general god is ruled out since all tests for gods end up negative or indistinguishable from placebo/null hypothesis.

You have repeatedly failed to demonstrate that your absolute logic is good for anything. Please demonstrate that it can be used to solve a practical problem.

Evolution does nothing practical, (it cannot make predictions for the future, all the "predictions" made are ad hoc), nor does the belief in atheism solve a practical problem. Perhaps turn your own criticism onto your own devices first, lest you wish to make a case for double standards.

I saw this reply about you feeling burned out on this thread so I'll try to keep this response short without asking any new questions that would require a answer from you and we can both let this topic drop if you feel like.

I disagree that A needs to exist in order for "A is A" to be true.

1. A unicorn is a unicorn2. A rocks dream is a rocks dream3. All Qid are Urp. Orm is a Qid. Therefore Orm is Urp.

All three of these deal with subjects that don't exist and yet they are all logically true.

The short answer is that logic is a created system is based on axioms (aka the laws of logic) which are considered self-evident or true by virtue of themselves. Axioms by definition are never proven although they can sometimes be disproven. The laws/axioms that you are asking for a justification for don't require any justification other than themselves.

Nobody claims something to be moral and immoral at the same time in the same way. Different people may hold different opinions on the morality of an action but that is not a logical contradiction since two different viewpoints from two different people doesn't fit the "in the same way" condition.Morality is relative because it depends on context and desired outcome. An action that is morally permisible in one situation or perspective may not be morally permissible in another. Whether a action is morally correct depends on what results are desired. The generally universal moral rules about murder, assault, etc. are a result of generally universal desires for continued life, absence of pain, etc. There are multiple ways to derive the immorality of murder, it's simply a matter of picking one. Utilitarianism would say it's wrong if the harm outweighs the benefit. Kant would say it's wrong because it treats people as a means rather than an end. The golden rule would say it's wrong because I wouldn't want to be murdered.

The concept of absolute moral rules suffers the same logical problems as the concept of an irrisistable force and a immovable object (namely that only one can exist in any universe). With a little imagination and some help from the philosophers friend "a man with a gun and horrible demands (i.e. murder this woman or I'll murder her and three others)" it's pretty easy to set nearly any 2 conceivable moral rules in opposition to each other or themselves. If an action is wrong under some circumstances but not others, that action isn't absolutely morally wrong.

The statement "something can't come from nothing" lacks any support if it's true that 'nothing' includes an absence of laws. It can only be justified if there are laws such as conservation laws or logical laws that apply even when there isn't anything.I'd also suggest looking at Noether's theorem for an explanation of what causes conservation laws. http://en.wikipedia....her%27s_theorem

The universe could certainly have come from vaccuum (the physical equivilant of nothing). It is in fact still nothing if you sum up the positive energy of matter and the negative energy of gravitational potential energy. It's roughly similar to saying 0=1 + -1. Usable energy can increase via expansion of the universe as long as entropy also increases. I posted how this works in post 21 of the linked thread below.http://evolutionfair...indpost&p=84526Basically if the universe starts at the upper limit for entropy for a small volume, when it expands the upper limit for entropy is increased. The current entropy can increase up to this new upper limit (aka usable energy becomes available). As long as the upper limit for entropy increases and the current entropy increases at a different rate, usable energy is available.

I rule out specific gods like Yahweh due to plot holes or incompetence attributed to them in the stories about them. (Such as placing a fruit tree that wasn't ever to be touched in the only place it could be touched or God somehow being both all-knowing and not aware of the serpent as it was tempting Eve.)A general god is ruled out since all tests for gods end up negative or indistinguishable from placebo/null hypothesis.

A vacuum is not the same as the nothing indicated before the BB. In that case nothing extends not only to physical nothing but no time and no space as well, (to have a vacuum you have space with which to create the vacuum in), hence you are comparing apples and oranges, in other words it doesn't logically fit.

Furthermore have you calculated all the positive energy and negative energy of the universe? So on what basis do you state that they cancel each other out? Its an incredulous claim in which you have no evidence whatsoever. Perhaps stick to real science since science deals with reality not guestimates. Unless you want to open the door to any and all claims in which you only need to sound convincing for it to be "true".... This is the breakdown in scientific integrity hailed by Darwin, when science is open to ideology rather than empirical evidence.

"Basically if the universe starts at the upper limit for entropy for a small volume, when it expands the upper limit for entropy is increased. The current entropy can increase up to this new upper limit (aka usable energy becomes available). As long as the upper limit for entropy increases and the current entropy increases at a different rate, usable energy is available."

Now what empirical evidence do you have for this claim? (see what I mean about science being influenced by ideology rather than actual empirical evidence)

"A general god is ruled out since all tests for gods end up negative or indistinguishable from placebo/null hypothesis."

What tests are these, hopefully not you asking God to give you a million dollars. To me God is the null hypothesis, for example if you have an event that defies reality (the formation of life for example), then the ONLY answer is a supernatural one, since only supernatural things can bend / break natural laws / reality to allow the even to come to pass.

Perhaps turn your own criticism onto your own devices first, lest you wish to make a case for double standards.

Whether or not you think evolution does anything practical has no bearing on my standards. I ask for the same evidence from evolution as I do from anything else. Evolution has met my standard. TeeJay has not.

A vacuum is not the same as the nothing indicated before the BB. In that case nothing extends not only to physical nothing but no time and no space as well, (to have a vacuum you have space with which to create the vacuum in), hence you are comparing apples and oranges, in other words it doesn't logically fit.

Furthermore have you calculated all the positive energy and negative energy of the universe? So on what basis do you state that they cancel each other out? Its an incredulous claim in which you have no evidence whatsoever. Perhaps stick to real science since science deals with reality not guestimates. Unless you want to open the door to any and all claims in which you only need to sound convincing for it to be "true".... This is the breakdown in scientific integrity hailed by Darwin, when science is open to ideology rather than empirical evidence.

The post I linked to contained the relevent data, both a formal proof of zero energy and a more direct calculation based on measurements of the observable universe. Additionally a flat universe should have zero energy and WMAP data indicates the universe is flat with about a 0.5% error margin.

"Basically if the universe starts at the upper limit for entropy for a small volume, when it expands the upper limit for entropy is increased. The current entropy can increase up to this new upper limit (aka usable energy becomes available). As long as the upper limit for entropy increases and the current entropy increases at a different rate, usable energy is available."

Now what empirical evidence do you have for this claim? (see what I mean about science being influenced by ideology rather than actual empirical evidence)

I also provided a easily performed example of this in the same linked post I mention above. If there's a gas in a room, it will expand to equalize pressure in the room. At that point the gas is at maximum entropy for the room size and it cannot be used to perform work. If a door is opened into an adjacent room and the gas is given additional space to fill, it is no longer at maximum entropy since it's no longer equally spread out in the available space. If there were a device set up at the doorway, the gas could be used to perform work as it flowed into the second room. When expansion produces a energy gradient, work is possible.

"A general god is ruled out since all tests for gods end up negative or indistinguishable from placebo/null hypothesis."

What tests are these, hopefully not you asking God to give you a million dollars. To me God is the null hypothesis, for example if you have an event that defies reality (the formation of life for example), then the ONLY answer is a supernatural one, since only supernatural things can bend / break natural laws / reality to allow the even to come to pass.

Any test you can think of, double blind prayer studies, asking for a million dollars, asking for a sign of existence, etc. If a god has no detectable effect on anything, anywhere, it's safe to consider it non-existent.

1. The post I linked to contained the relevent data, both a formal proof of zero energy and a more direct calculation based on measurements of the observable universe. Additionally a flat universe should have zero energy and WMAP data indicates the universe is flat with about a 0.5% error margin.

2. I also provided a easily performed example of this in the same linked post I mention above. If there's a gas in a room, it will expand to equalize pressure in the room. At that point the gas is at maximum entropy for the room size and it cannot be used to perform work. If a door is opened into an adjacent room and the gas is given additional space to fill, it is no longer at maximum entropy since it's no longer equally spread out in the available space. If there were a device set up at the doorway, the gas could be used to perform work as it flowed into the second room. When expansion produces a energy gradient, work is possible.

3. Any test you can think of, double blind prayer studies, asking for a million dollars, asking for a sign of existence, etc. If a god has no detectable effect on anything, anywhere, it's safe to consider it non-existent.

1. Perhaps it would be more prudent to actually post the data, rather than just say, "look here". I find it bordering on the edge of insane that people can claim to be able to calculate all the energy of the universe..... (Consider fusion within stars, they are basically claiming they know how many hydrogen atoms exist in every single star since these atoms are the basis of the star's energy). A claim like that requires ALOT of evidence.

2. Firstly your example rests solely on this "device" and if it can do what you claim it can do. Consider for a moment that no device exists so therefore you are just pulling just-so-stories from your imagination. There has been no recorded event where the random heat energy given off can be utilised for work, this is the basis of the prediction of the "heat death" of the universe whereby all the energy of the universe decays to this random heat and therefore since no work can be done the universe dies.

Perhaps have ACTUAL evidence before you make a claim, imaginary stories are not evidence, nor are they scientific. In fact your claim here proves what I said about Darwinism dumbing down science into an ideology rather than an empirical discipline.

"Perhaps stick to real science since science deals with reality not guestimates. Unless you want to open the door to any and all claims in which you only need to sound convincing for it to be "true".... This is the breakdown in scientific integrity hailed by Darwin, when science is open to ideology rather than empirical evidence".

And you did just that, you had a story and you thought it sounded logical..... Sounding "logical" is not scientific, also it is arbitrary since being logical has no requirement of truth (and in this case proof), rather being "logical" is merely a claim we place on something that agrees with our own internal bias and is a reflection on our own limited knowledge at the time.

3. No they are not tests, since who is to say that God WILL respond. Its not the same as putting metal in acid since you expect a reaction. God on the other hand has no obligation to do what you ask, hence there should be no expectation. Therefore you cannot "test" the existence of God... It has not one iota of rationale to it.

Whether or not you think evolution does anything practical has no bearing on my standards. I ask for the same evidence from evolution as I do from anything else. Evolution has met my standard. TeeJay has not.

Then you are admitting to double standards since I have already demonstrated how evolution doesn't fit the standards you are imposing.

Evolution can make no predictions (since it is based on RANDOM change), since no predictions can be made therefore there are no expectations, no expectations lead to no developments and no developments leads to no new technological innovation.

"You have repeatedly failed to demonstrate that your absolute logic is good for anything. Please demonstrate that it can be used to solve a practical problem."

That is exactly the same standard that I ask of evolution. Evolution has met that standard to my satisfaction. Your opinions have no bearng on my standards. Only my own standards can be double. Your standards don't enter into it.

That is exactly the same standard that I ask of evolution. Evolution has met that standard to my satisfaction. Your opinions have no bearng on my standards. Only my own standards can be double. Your standards don't enter into it.

I am using YOUR standards. You ask for how it can be used to solve a practical problem I have already demonstrated how evolution cannot be used to solve a practical problem therefore it doesn't fit your standards, (if you claim differently then that is evidence of double standards). If you wish to debate this then please demonstrate an observed practical problem by which evolution was the sole solution.

EDIT: Or better yet how about new technological innovations that came about solely from evolution, (not from Genetics, not from Medicine, from Evolution)

EDIT: Or better yet how about new technological innovations that came about solely from evolution, (not from Genetics, not from Medicine, from Evolution)

That's your standard, not mine. By my standard, the use of animal insulin in humans is a practical problem solved by evolution. You can say my standard is too low, if you like, but it isn't double. Tee Jay is welcome to reject my standard too if he wants.

1. Perhaps it would be more prudent to actually post the data, rather than just say, "look here". I find it bordering on the edge of insane that people can claim to be able to calculate all the energy of the universe..... (Consider fusion within stars, they are basically claiming they know how many hydrogen atoms exist in every single star since these atoms are the basis of the star's energy). A claim like that requires ALOT of evidence.

I'm not going to copy and paste an entire pdf and an entire webpage. I gave you the links, if you need them again here:http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605063 Calculation showing exact zero from theoryhttp://www.curtismen...oEnergyCalc.htm Calculation showing zero within a margin of error from mass of observable universeThe formal proof that a flat universe has zero energy doesn't require knowing the exact mass of the universe, that's the point of a mathematical proof, it would apply to any flat universe with any mass. The WMAP data showing the universe is flat can be found here. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/The calculation based on the visible universe is just a way to verify that the approximately 10^80 atoms in the visible universe gives a total energy value reasonably close to the expected zero.

2. Firstly your example rests solely on this "device" and if it can do what you claim it can do. Consider for a moment that no device exists so therefore you are just pulling just-so-stories from your imagination. There has been no recorded event where the random heat energy given off can be utilised for work, this is the basis of the prediction of the "heat death" of the universe whereby all the energy of the universe decays to this random heat and thereforesince no work can be done the universe dies.

First of all, I assure you that devices called windmills do exist and that they really can capture energy from moving gas and use it to perform work.Secondly, heat is useable as long as there is a temperature gradient, that's how heat engines function. For reasons of cost and efficiency we only use large gradients but any difference in temperature is capable of being used. The heat death of the universe refers to the point where the universe is the same temperature everywhere (it could be a high temperature or low temperature), meaning there's no gradient and no useable energy.

Perhaps have ACTUAL evidence before you make a claim, imaginary stories are not evidence, nor are they scientific. In fact your claim here proves what I said about Darwinism dumbing down science into an ideology rather than an empirical discipline.

If you really need evidence that gas moves to fill available space here's an experiment you can do at home.Take a soda bottle and remove some air from it. Open the bottle and listen as air rushes back in. That's evidence that gas moves to fill available space.If you need evidence that moving gas can be used to perform work, here's an experiment you can do at home.Take a desk fan and blow on it. If the blades move, that's moving gas performing work. If they don't move, try it with a pinwheel or blow harder.

3. No they are not tests, since who is to say that God WILL respond. Its not the same as putting metal in acid since you expect a reaction. God on the other hand has no obligation to do what you ask, hence there should be no expectation. Therefore you cannot "test" the existence of God... It has not one iota of rationale to it.

A valid test needs to be able to give a positive or negative result. Gods are expected to be capable of answering prayers or interacting with the real world in other ways, correct? Therefore it is possible for such a test to give a positive result. If the tests don't that's a negative/null result. That all such tests end up negative simply means that gods which choose not to interact are indistinguishable from things that aren't real.

A valid test needs to be able to give a positive or negative result. Gods are expected to be capable of answering prayers or interacting with the real world in other ways, correct? Therefore it is possible for such a test to give a positive result. If the tests don't that's a negative/null result. That all such tests end up negative simply means that gods which choose not to interact are indistinguishable from things that aren't real.

Your "scientific tests" are invalid, because of God's free will, and then there is His omniscience. Capable of answering prayer is not to say that it will happen immediately, or in the way we plan, or even at all:

If you are capable of sending me $100, does that mean you will? What if you knew I was going to donate $10 to charity, and buy a fancy pair of pants with the rest, would that compel you to send it to me? Now if God knows that giving you 1 million dollars STILL would not convince you that He exists...are you getting where I'm going with this? Plus, how many people in the history of the world have asked God for riches? I am sure you are aware of the problem of inflation with producing money out of thin air, Or an alternative would be to unfairly distribute the wealth of the world in your favor, which doesn't really help anything either. Do you see how we can be short sighted when we pray to God? He knows all this and then some, so there are good reasons why He SHOULDN'T give you 1 million dollars which we can deduce logically with a basic understanding of economics.

If I had cancer and you could cure my cancer, but more ultimate good would come out of NOT curing me, would you still cure me just to prove you could?

Another problem with your argument that "God is indistinguishable from things that aren't real" is that there is historical testimony in both the Bible and secular sources which, when brought to the same scrutiny as in a criminal trial, would be undeniable. The only thing your argument is proving is that no amount of signs would convince you that God exists.

I have a question for you, since you believe that there is no God, do you wish God did exist; omniscient, judge, ruler, and 100% fair or do you take comfort in the idea that God does not exist?

That's your standard, not mine. By my standard, the use of animal insulin in humans is a practical problem solved by evolution. You can say my standard is too low, if you like, but it isn't double. Tee Jay is welcome to reject my standard too if he wants.

No I am using your standard. I quoted you and everything.....

Animal insulin use has had nothing to do with evolution, it comes from the discipline of Medicine.

1. I'm not going to copy and paste an entire pdf and an entire webpage. I gave you the links, if you need them again here:http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605063 Calculation showing exact zero from theoryhttp://www.curtismen...oEnergyCalc.htm Calculation showing zero within a margin of error from mass of observable universeThe formal proof that a flat universe has zero energy doesn't require knowing the exact mass of the universe, that's the point of a mathematical proof, it would apply to any flat universe with any mass. The WMAP data showing the universe is flat can be found here. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/The calculation based on the visible universe is just a way to verify that the approximately 10^80 atoms in the visible universe gives a total energy value reasonably close to the expected zero.

2. First of all, I assure you that devices called windmills do exist and that they really can capture energy from moving gas and use it to perform work.

3. Secondly, heat is useable as long as there is a temperature gradient, that's how heat engines function. For reasons of cost and efficiency we only use large gradients but any difference in temperature is capable of being used. The heat death of the universe refers to the point where the universe is the same temperature everywhere (it could be a high temperature or low temperature), meaning there's no gradient and no useable energy.

4. If you really need evidence that gas moves to fill available space here's an experiment you can do at home.

5. A valid test needs to be able to give a positive or negative result. Gods are expected to be capable of answering prayers or interacting with the real world in other ways, correct? Therefore it is possible for such a test to give a positive result. If the tests don't that's a negative/null result. That all such tests end up negative simply means that gods which choose not to interact are indistinguishable from things that aren't real.

1. Perhaps post the most relevant parts. I am not going to do your work for you. Post your claims and quotes.

I'd also ask, by what EMPIRICAL method is this claim verified? OR have you crossed into the metaphysical.

2. Comparing apples to oranges. Windmills work due to wind, NOT random heat energy. WInd is caused by fluctuations of air mass caused from sunlight (active heat energy, not entropy). You changed the goal posts first you were talking about energy from random heat energy which is lost, then you are talking about energy from gas...

3. A heat engine is also fueled from active energy, since active energy is required to have a temperature gradient in the first place. The amounts of energy you are citing from entropy and their RANDOMNESS doesn't conform to the requirements of the heat engine.

4. That wasn't the claim I was addressing... Again you are changing the goal posts.

Your "scientific tests" are invalid, because of God's free will, and then there is His omniscience. Capable of answering prayer is not to say that it will happen immediately, or in the way we plan, or even at all:

If you are capable of sending me $100, does that mean you will?

1. It doesn't matter to me whether you believe I exist or not, so I have no motivation to send you anything. Most gods are described as wanting humans to acknowledge their existance so there would be a motivation on the gods part to act in such a way as to produce awareness of their existence.2. It would require cost and effort on my part to send you money. For a omnipotent god, sending something to someone would be effortless and costless.3 There's never been a claim that I'll give people money when asked. The bible contains written claims that god responded to various requests.

If I had cancer and you could cure my cancer, but more ultimate good would come out of NOT curing me, would you still cure me just to prove you could?

I'd give you an explanation of the greater good resulting from not curing you and then let you decide if you wanted the cure, if you did then I'd give it to you. Do you really want to start arguing that cancer has a net benefit to humanity? I can promise you that the rest of humanity disagrees with that idea.

Another problem with your argument that "God is indistinguishable from things that aren't real" is that there is historical testimony in both the Bible and secular sources which, when brought to the same scrutiny as in a criminal trial, would be undeniable.

Not really, if a witness in a criminal trial said that a miracle occured like water turning into wine their testimony would be ignored as unreliable. The reason being that miracles don't seem to happen anymore.There's no actual mention of jesus or biblical miracles in any secular contemporary records, only mentions of christians who believed in jesus. It's like using a news report saying that scientologists believe in Xenu as evidence that scientology is true. But let's say that the miracles in the bible actually happened, that would clearly indicate that god was willing and able to interact with the world at one point, and yet now he appears to not be willing.

I have a question for you, since you believe that there is no God, do you wish God did exist; omniscient, judge, ruler, and 100% fair or do you take comfort in the idea that God does not exist?

It depends on how you mean 'fair' since fair could apply to both cruel rulers and benevolent rulers. If god puts out a decree that breathing=50 lashes and enforces it equally on everyone then the enforcement would be 'fair' but the punishment would be cruel and excessive. If a fair and benevolent god existed then certainly it would be welcome. A fair and cruel god would not be. I don't agree that the god described in the bible, especially the old testament, is an omniscient, fair, good, or wise ruler however. I don't take comfort in gods not existing, it's never occured to me to think 'gee I'm glad there's no such thing as god'.

1. Perhaps post the most relevant parts. I am not going to do your work for you. Post your claims and quotes.

I'd also ask, by what EMPIRICAL method is this claim verified? OR have you crossed into the metaphysical.

From the website (my descriptions of the numbers):Positive energy from mass: 9 x 10 16 Negative energy from gravity: - 9.77 x 10 16 If you will compare the two expressions in red, the positive and negative energies of the Universe (after they are both multiplied by the mass of our hypothetical particle sitting at the edge of the Universe) , you will see that they are extremely close, considering what huge numbers we were dealing with and our rounding off of numbers. Since the second one is considered as negative energy, that means we have shown that the net energy in the Universe is ZERO with a discrepancy of about 0.77 parts out of 9 or about 8%.

It's not possible to paste the math equations from the pdf into this forum.Because we found a constant result, we may say that the total energy of a flat R.W.’s Universe is null.

The value for the mass of the visible universe is based on the empirical measurement of the gravity of galaxies. The hubble telescope is providing empirical data on the size of the visible universe which is used to determine the gravitational energy of the visible universe. The WMAP provides empirical data on the flatness of the visible universe. A flat universe is mathematically required to have zero energy.

2. Comparing apples to oranges. Windmills work due to wind, NOT random heat energy. WInd is caused by fluctuations of air mass caused from sunlight (active heat energy, not entropy). You changed the goal posts first you were talking about energy from random heat energy which is lost, then you are talking about energy from gas...

3. A heat engine is also fueled from active energy, since active energy is required to have a temperature gradient in the first place. The amounts of energy you are citing from entropy and their RANDOMNESS doesn't conform to the requirements of the heat engine.

4. That wasn't the claim I was addressing... Again you are changing the goal posts.

Here's the initial segment of the conversation.Teejay: The useable amount of energy is ever decreasing...me: Usable energy can increase via expansion of the universe as long as entropy also increases

The discussion has always been about how useable energy can become available and that's what my example showed. Increased volume permits useable energy (work) from a prior maximum entropy state that contained nothing but unusable energy. The universe increasing in volume created a gap between actual entropy and maximum entropy. The entropy gap is what permits unusable energy to become useable energy according to the second law.